Author Topic: Soviet Atrocities and the Killing of Disabled and Innocent Children  (Read 71128 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Elisabeth

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2131
    • View Profile
One of my more baffling experiences as a graduate student was encountering well-educated Americans who knew almost everything about the Holocaust but absolutely nothing about Soviet atrocities under Stalin. I recall one good, very intelligent and well-read friend who was astonished to learn that some 10-15 million peasants died during collectivization and the terror-famine that followed, another five million or so people under the Great Terror. Nor had she ever heard of the Communist atrocities under Mao in China Ė 30 million dead during the Great Leap Forward, another 5-10 million killed during the Cultural Revolution. Before she met me (a fellow liberal Democrat!) she believed that all Communist atrocities, with the exception of those in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, were solely the invention of anti-Communist propaganda propogated by neo-McCarthyites.

Why arenít Soviet and Maoist atrocities better known in the West? Why havenít they gripped the public imagination to the extent that the Holocaust has? After all, Stalin and Mao taken together (or even taken separately!) killed far more human beings than Hitler ever did. Why arenít their crimes better publicized? Is there something in the Communist ideology itself that makes atrocities committed in its name somehow less "atrocious" than other crimes against humanity? Do you think it is justified or fair to teach students about Nazi atrocities in public schools without teaching about Communist atrocities at the same time? Or do you think the situation in Western schools has changed since I was a graduate student some fifteen years ago? †
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Elisabeth »
... I love my poor earth
because I have seen no other

-- Osip Mandelshtam

Offline Tania+

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1206
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Soviet Atrocities
« Reply #1 on: September 02, 2005, 04:17:41 PM »
Dear Elizabeth,

Baffling cannot cover the word and the frustration of trying to get accross this point to fellow Americans, indeed even to any press.

Many times I've given question to the press, why don't you write and offer in your press, more factual stories about the soviet atrocities? Response, people are not interested. Then one goes into a catch 22 with the press. Well I respond, if you print it, people will be educated, and that in itself will create interest.

[I notice still today, in newspapers, flyers, etc., they support teaching children about the only holocaust, and or ask the public to purchase, and wear buttons to support the education of the holocaust of the jews.] This may be fine for the children of Israel, or whom are jewish, but what about the countless millions whom from other countries and ethnicities, who suffered untold misery, deprivation, torture, murder, genocide?

I state again, this is not the only holocaust of history, and the Jews should not be in a place to sit over all other peoples and nations, to say they lead the way in stating they suffered the worst in terms of holocaust!

No say the newspapers, all these 'other holocausts', it's old news. Then I ask, well then, why is it so important to every other month or three, to have news stories galore, ongoing films, or tv special films about the jewish holocaust. By the way, I say, although there was the holocaust of the Jews, [before that was at the start of that century of the jewish holocaust], there was the holocaust of the Armenians, [whom to this day, the Turkish government has not taken responsibility, nor has the UN taken them to court for the genocide]; After that the Armenians also suffered from the soviet atrocities. [For Americans, where is the story of the genocide of the American Indians for our schoolchildren to know about?]
Then came the Ukranian famine, etc., etc.

I know there were terrible atrocities by Mao, but here also, western societies are offered the least in understanding. I myself am not realy fully at all comprehensive of what was done to humankind there.

I was always to understand the taking of one life, is wrong. But millions, and there is not any accountability, let alone balance given in all history books globally, what is to be said of that?

Sorry, I get a bit heated about this subject, but only again, because in our family history, someone paid the dear price; then follows the complete negligence of not taking time to teach students everywhere, that wholesale murder and genocide from and by any country, or persons is not justified.

I agree with you, how are our children here and across the world to learn, and learn to live in peace if we don't offer the completeness of truth in our history books.

Peace begins at home, and I believe once we are able to start here at home, in balancing the books of history, then we can really feel we have accomplished much.
Thanks for allowing me to share my thoughts.

Tania



TatianaA


Offline Maxim

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: Soviet Atrocities
« Reply #2 on: September 02, 2005, 07:28:01 PM »
If you want to debate 'Soviet atrocities' it is best to list what you mean by them and put forward the historical evidence as to how they were manifested and how many people they are thought to have affected.

I would like, for instance, to know the methodology behind '20 million peasants died during collectivization' - to me, it sounds like a made up number. Also, the idea of a "Ukrainian famine" is a misnomer - all the grain-producing regions of the European USSR had a poor harvest in 1932-33.

Finally, there are many many history books that discuss and debate and argue the exact extent of all sorts of these numbers. You could scarcely want more books about the Gulag system or the famine of 32-33 or the deportation of nationals. They are out there to be read.


Offline Robert_Hall

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6648
  • a site.
    • View Profile
Re: Soviet Atrocities
« Reply #3 on: September 02, 2005, 08:16:35 PM »
I am afraid you will find a definite lack of historical objectivity on this board when it comes to anti-Soviet sentiment.
Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.

Offline C.J._Griffin

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
    • Red Holocaust
Re: Soviet Atrocities
« Reply #4 on: September 02, 2005, 10:46:25 PM »
From the numerous books I've read on the subject, I break down the Soviet death toll like this:

Around 20 million (citing The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Stephane Courtois et al) to 35 million (citing A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia by Alexander Yakovlev) killed in all, from 1917 to 1991

250,000 executed by the Cheka during the "Red Terror" and Russian civil war. (citing The Cheka: Lenin's Political Police by George Leggett) But it could be much higher (see my sig)

Between 300,000 and 500,000 Cossacks killed or deported in 1919 and 1920 (known as "de-Cossackization"; not sure how many of these deaths overlap with the aforementioned Cheka executions - if at all). (citing The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Stephane Courtois et al)

Between 7.2 to 10.8 million deaths during dekulakization and collectivization - which caused a famine the regime used as a weapon against supposed "class enemies" (citing Stalin and His Hangmen: the Tyrant and Those Who Killed For Him by Donald Rayfield)

Around 700,000 executed during the Great Terror of 1937-38 (citing Stalin: the Court of the Red Tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore); this does not include those who were beaten/tortured to death during "interrogation" or deaths in the gulag during this time, which would put it over a million.

Over 1 million Polish citizens deported by November 1940; 30% of whom were dead by 1941 (citing Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore) and 21,857 executed outright (i.e. Katyn) by the NKVD during the Nazi-Soviet pact (citing Autopsy for an Empire by Dimitri Volkogonov)

A total of 34,250 Latvians and around 60,000 Estonians and 75,000 Lithuanians murdered or deported during Nazi-Soviet pact (citing Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore)

An estimated 4.5 million (citing Gulag: A History by Anne Applebaum) to 12 million (citing How to Prevent Genocide: A Guide for Policymakers, Scholars, and the Concerned Citizen by John G. Heidenrich) deaths in the Gulag from 1918 to 1956. †

(I'm leaving out Stalin's ethnic cleansing of minorities in the USSR during WWII - Chechens, Crimean Taters, Kalmyks, Volga Germans, etc. - accused of "collaboration" with the Germans. I can't think of a source for that one off the top of my head. I'm sure hundreds of thousands perished though)

Haven't read as much on Mao Tse-tung, but the new biography of him by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday (Mao: The Unknown Story) estimates "well over 70 million" perished as a result of Mao's policies which, if true, makes him the biggest mass killer in history.

Broken down looks like this:

3 million deaths during land reform and the "campaign to suppress counter-revolutionaries"

38 million deaths during "Great Leap Forward"

3 million deaths during the Cultural Revolution

27 million deaths in the lao-gai (the Chinese gulag)


Oh, anyone looking for reading material on Stalin's bloody reign of terror might want to check out the list I made at Amazon.com
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by C.J._Griffin »

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: Soviet Atrocities
« Reply #5 on: September 03, 2005, 01:33:15 AM »
Quote
I am afraid you will find a definite lack of historical objectivity on this board when it comes to anti-Soviet sentiment.


In assessing any piece of historical scholarship, by what standards may that historical account be judged as being accurate?

Are not all accounts biased and motivated to portray an event as the author intends?

Each side will proffer arguments that they believe has merit.

Each side has a commonality of shared beliefs and is entitled to hold those beliefs.

The commonality of both sides is the point of discussion.

While the discussion may never reach a resolution, surely the best outcome is to respect one's point of view? ;D


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline C.J._Griffin

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
    • Red Holocaust
sRe: Soviet Atrocities
« Reply #6 on: September 03, 2005, 09:23:28 AM »
Quote

Are not all accounts biased and motivated to portray an event as the author intends?


Indeed. Just think of all the leftists who have written about Pinochet's excesses (3,000 dead commies and sympathizers; the way they tell it you'd think it was the crime of the century) and the "horrors" of the McCarthy era (in which not one single person was killed). These accounts are always taken as gospel truth by the same people who question works on Soviet atrocities it seems.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by C.J._Griffin »

Offline Elisabeth

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2131
    • View Profile
Re: Soviet Atrocities
« Reply #7 on: September 03, 2005, 01:00:47 PM »
But is there something about Communist ideology in particular that somehow makes it peculiarly "exempt" from accusations of crimes against humanity? Is it because Communism's intentions are supposedly good, in promising a heaven on earth of egalitariansim for all (except for those hailing from the wrong social class, of course)? Why is Communism still such an attractive ideology to many who do not even regard themselves as communists, while fascism and Nazism are generally and rightly recognized as evil?

My own sense is that Western Europeans and Americans identify with the Jews who perished in the Holocaust because these victims are usually presented in the media as Western Europeans belonging to the middle class (Anne Frank being the prime example). So as middle class Westerners we identify with our own. (Of course, the majority of the Jewish victims were in fact Eastern Europeans of the lower classes...) Whereas most of the victims in the Stalinist and Maoist terrors were peasants. Not to mention the fact that Russians and other Soviet citizens as well as, needless to say, the Chinese, belong to the "East" and as "Asians" are also therefore considered in the popular imagination to be somewhat "strange" and "exotic" - so it follows that strange and inhumane things are somehow "expected" to happen in these places. †In other words, I think that more than a little racism and classism is involved in our current "ranking" of these human tragedies.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Elisabeth »
... I love my poor earth
because I have seen no other

-- Osip Mandelshtam

Offline C.J._Griffin

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
    • Red Holocaust
Re: Soviet Atrocities
« Reply #8 on: September 03, 2005, 01:41:27 PM »
Quote
But is there something about Communist ideology in particular that somehow makes it peculiarly "exempt" from accusations of crimes against humanity? Is it because Communism's intentions are supposedly good, in promising a heaven on earth of egalitariansim for all (except for those hailing from the wrong social class, of course)? Why is Communism still such an attractive ideology to many who do not even regard themselves as communists, while fascism and Nazism are generally and rightly recognized as evil?


In Gulag: A History, Anne Applebaum addresses this very subject:

"It is not only the far-Left, and not only Western communists, who were tempted to make excuses for Stalin's crimes that they would never have made for Hitlerís. Communist ideals - social justice, equality for all - are simply far more attractive to most in the West than the Nazi advocacy of racism and the triumph of the strong over the weak. Even if communist ideology meant something very different in practice, it was harder for the intellectual descendents of the American and French Revolutions to condemn a system which sounded, at least, similar to their own. Perhaps this helps explain why eyewitness reports of the Gulag were, from the very beginning, often dismissed and belittled by the very same people who would never have thought to question the validity of Holocaust testimony written by Primo Levi or Elie Wiesel. From the Russian Revolution on, official information about the Soviet camps was readily available too, to anyone who wanted it: the most famous Soviet account of one of the early camps, the White Sea Canal, was even published in English. Ignorance alone cannot explain why Western intellectuals chose to avoid the subject." pg xxi

Quote
My own sense is that Western Europeans and Americans identify with the Jews who perished in the Holocaust because these victims are usually presented in the media as Western Europeans belonging to the middle class (Anne Frank being the prime example). So as middle class Westerners we identify with our own. (Of course, the majority of the Jewish victims were in fact Eastern Europeans of the lower classes...) Whereas most of the victims in the Stalinist and Maoist terrors were peasants. Not to mention the fact that Russians and other Soviet citizens as well as, needless to say, the Chinese, belong to the "East" and as "Asians" are also therefore considered in the popular imagination to be somewhat "strange" and "exotic" - so it follows that strange and inhumane things are somehow "expected" to happen in these places. †In other words, I think that more than a little racism and classism is involved in our current "ranking" of these human tragedies.


I agree. To quote from the book In Denial: Historians, Communism & Espionage by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr:

"But when it comes to the grand vision of Communism, far too many American academics are willing to excuse the murder of "uneducated peasants" and exculpate, even admire, a ruthless dictator and the elegant design of his coercive mechanisms." pg 26

Offline Tsarfan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1848
  • Miss the kings, but not the kingdoms
    • View Profile
Re: Soviet Atrocities
« Reply #9 on: February 26, 2006, 07:44:19 AM »
First, I want to be very clear before I continue . . . .  I entirely agree with those people who put very large numbers on the deaths under Stalin's Terror.  And I entirely agree with those people who say Western teaching and imagination is much more occupied by the Holocaust than by the horrors of the early decades of the Bolshevik regime.  (Having grown up during the Cold War and the Cuban missile crisis, though, I can assure you we in the U.S. were plenty occupied about what we thought was going on during the latter soviet regime.)

But one discussion I have never seen anywhere, whether it be about the Nazi or the Bolshevik regimes, is the question of whether they were uniquely evil, or whether their evil was a depressingly common artifact of the way new government systems have striven to establish themselves throughout history.

To explore this question requires a historical debate, not a moral one.

We should remember that tsarism was roughly eight centuries old when it left its last impressions on our memory.  And our impressions of the soviet era rest on its initial 70 years, with the focus in this Forum mostly on its initial Bolshevik and Stalinist phases.

But I would like to propose that most western monarchies -- as well as tsarism -- were born in throes of violence that, relative to the technology and demographics of their eras, was often as extreme as what happened under the Nazis and the Bolsheviks.

Look at castle architecture across western Europe from the era in which monarchies were coalescing from feudal warfare.  Every castle was built to hold the population of the surrounding countryside during an attack.  The reason was that warfare encompassed not only a battle of armed knights but also attempts to destory the enemy's ability to sustain and regenerate himself.  One element of that was to wipe out the entire civilian labor force that supported a lord's domain.  Moral questions simply did not come into consideration.

And the use of violence against civilian populations was not unique to the establishment of monarchies.  Look at the Terror that accompanied the French Revolution.  And violence was pressed into service in battles to establish new belief systems as well.  Look at the wars that ravaged the civilian populations of central Europe during the early Protestant era, or the burnings during Mary Tudors English reign, or the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre in France.

As monarchies became stabilized and then entrenched, the role of violence began to alter and recede.  Its initial role had been either to eliminate all possible opposition or to subdue it through fear.  In that early phase, the emphasis was on eradicating the elements of the existing society that resisted -- or had the potential or motivation to resist -- the new order.  Then priorities shifted toward creating new social organs that would support the new regime without the invocation of force.  William the Conqueror dispossessed the indigenous land-owning classes of England and distributed their lands to his Norman fellows.  Peter the Great, fearing resistance to his westernization policy, subordinated the Orthodox Church to the monarchy by refusing to fill its top post, eventually assuming the role himself.  Louis XIV caged his rambunctious nobility at Versaiiles by cutting off state preferments to those who would not join him in the ruinous expense of living there (which bled off their ability to fund personal armies).

But violence always remained below the service as a tool to be called up when needed.  Fortunately, its later use tended to be against individuals.  Henry VIII beheaded an inconvenient wife on trumped up charges of incest.  Peter the Great, fearing his son would become the focus of resistance to westernization, had him tortured to death.  Frederick the Great's father forced him to watch the beheading of his best friend, probably in an attempt to erase the specter of homosexuality.

Eventually, monarchical states became encumbered in their ability to invoke wholesale violence, with the specturm of encumbrance very roughly decreasing along a west-to-east line.  By the 19th century, it was virtually unavailable to the British monarchy.  In Romanov Russia, there were no legal impediments on the autocracy's use of violence, the only throttle being the tsar's own predilections.  That is why, despite the reach of anti-semitism across Europe, it resulted in frequent pogroms only in Russia, where the state tolerated -- and perhaps occasionally institigated -- violence.

So here's the point of this too-long post:

The only Western attempts to create fundamentally new social orders during the memory of those still living were the Bolshevik revolution and the Nazi hijacking of Germany.  We no longer have a living memory of the formative stages of other systems.

As a consequence, we have a distorted ability to place the violence of Nazism and Bolshevism into a historical context -- unless we make a disciplined effort to do so.

Before collapsing around an inherently flawed economic theory, Bolshevism only had a 70 year run.  Even as early as Kruschev's private 1956 speech about Stalininst horrors, the regime was beginning the slow process of replacing indiscrimate violence with a reliance on new organs of support, such as the impenetrable and stultifying soviet bureaucracy.

Did violence remain at its core?  Yes, but only in the sense that it remained embedded in tsarism -- progressively less used, but always available, as neither form of government had any inherent limit on its ability to invoke violence.






Offline Elisabeth

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2131
    • View Profile
Re: Soviet Atrocities
« Reply #10 on: February 26, 2006, 12:00:17 PM »
I really hate to say this, Tsarfan, because usually I find your arguments compelling in the emotional sense, if not always in the logical one - but what you say is, to put it bluntly, utter crap. †It seems that once again everyone is guilty of Soviet atrocities - except the Soviets themselves. Following your brand of logic, we are now supposed to blame the last kaiser, not to mention Frederick the Great, for the evils of the Holocaust. Say what???

If only the defendants at Nuremberg had known! If only Eichmann in Jerusalem had known! They could have argued not only that they were "just following orders," but also that they were "just following the example of [their] predecessors."

The fact of the matter is that you are leaving out not only the role of personal responsibility, and not only the stabilizing and pacifying role played by the increasingly large middle class in the West, but also - and I stress this! - †the huge role that extremist ideologies played in bringing about both Nazi and Soviet atrocities. I would strongly, strongly advise you to read more history books about the Soviet era. I have yet to come across a serious professional historian who blames the horrific excesses of Stalin's reign on the tsars. Even Soviet apologists almost to the last man view Stalin as the ultimate evil, not to be excused by any lengths or by any stretch of the imagination.... And while some of them see Stalin as a historical aberration (like Ivan the Terrible) - personally,  I don't think so - on the contrary, I think he grew quite logically out of Lenin and Lenin's own political excesses of violence and torture. Furthermore, this pronounced (even innate) tendency of Bolshevism has been more than amply demonstrated in histories of the Gulag by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Robert Conquest, and Anne Applebaum. But I suspect - and please excuse me if I'm wrong - that you haven't yet read any of these histories. Because otherwise I think that, as the sensitive and highly intelligent person you are, you would (more than) hesitate to draw such cheap and easy comparisons between the tsarist and Soviet regimes. Because they really are... cheap and easy.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Elisabeth »
... I love my poor earth
because I have seen no other

-- Osip Mandelshtam

Offline Elisabeth

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2131
    • View Profile
Re: Soviet Atrocities
« Reply #11 on: February 26, 2006, 02:04:25 PM »
I'd like to think that if Hitler had died in 1938 we would not be congratulating his successors as beneficent leaders because of decreased German unemployment, restored German confidence and a larger German presence on the international scene... all this while the euthanasia of the mentally and physically handicapped, not to mention the Nuremberg laws had until only recently still been in force...

Here's the biography of a Soviet victim, taken from the Penguin Twentieth-Century Classics series: "Osip Mandelstam was born in 1891 of Jewish parents and was brought up in St. Petersburg. The first volume of his poetry, Kamen ('Stone'), was published in 1913 and was followed by Tristia (1922) and Poems (1928). His persecution by the Soviet authorities for his evident lack of ideological conformism began in earnest in the 1930s, and in 1934 he was arrested and eventually exiled to Voronezh. [He was arrested again] and died in Eastern Siberia in 1938, on the way to a labor camp."

One might add, that he was originally arrested because he wrote a secret poem denouncing Stalin. And that he died of starvation and exposure in December 1938, according to the testimony of other camp inmates.

This is a late poem by Mandelstam, written about the Stalin years, near the end of his life:

The mounds of human heads disappear into the distance,
I dwindle here, no longer noticed,
But in caressing books and children's games,
I shall rise from the dead to say: the sun is shining!

- 1937

(trans. James Greene, with a little help from myself [what can I say, his translation was a little lacklustre], Penguin Twentieth Century Classics, p. 341) † †
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Elisabeth »
... I love my poor earth
because I have seen no other

-- Osip Mandelshtam

Offline Tania+

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1206
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Soviet Atrocities
« Reply #12 on: February 26, 2006, 02:09:48 PM »
Very well stated Elizabeth! I Agree. Thank You !!!   ;)

Tatiana+
TatianaA


Offline Tsarfan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1848
  • Miss the kings, but not the kingdoms
    • View Profile
Re: Soviet Atrocities
« Reply #13 on: February 26, 2006, 03:56:24 PM »
Quote
I really hate to say this, Tsarfan, because usually I find your arguments compelling in the emotional sense, if not always in the logical one - but what you say is, to put it bluntly, utter crap. †It seems that once again everyone is guilty of Soviet atrocities - except the Soviets themselves. Following your brand of logic, we are now supposed to blame the last kaiser, not to mention Frederick the Great, for the evils of the Holocaust. Say what???


Huh? †Where did I say the soviets were not guilty of their own atrocities? †Of course they were. †I don't care how horrible slavery was or how poorly immigrants were treated, the person who commits a drive-by shooting today should be executed for it. †I feel that strongly about personal responsibility.

But if you broaden the focus beyond just Lenin or Stalin and ask the broader question of how did they get by with their atrocities, you have to start addressing issues beyond them as individuals.

There is a distinction between motive and ability. †The tsars contributed nothing to Stalin's motives. †He was a paranoid psychopath. †But what they did bequeth to him was a society in which the instinct and the political capacity to resist the predations of authority had never been allowed to evolve. †One man cannot emerge on the scene over a few short years to order the murder of millions and have his orders carried out with no resistance unless something has gone very, very wrong beforehand.

Remember, most Russians in 1917 had a recent memory of a march a dozen years earlier when government troops gunned down citizens trying to present a petition to their monarch. †That particular monarch might not have intended that outcome, but the people guarding an empty palace that day for some reason thought it was worse to have a petition for change left at the door than to open fire on an unarmed crowd.

I do not think it was a coincidence that fascism in its most extreme form took root in the most militarized society in Europe or that the violence of bolshevism succeeded in terrorizing tens of millions in the most autocratic society in Europe.

Like it or not, atrocities have frequently accompanied the birth of new forms of government. †If the emergence of the middle classes operated as a brake on this phenomenon, why have two of the great monsters of history emerged out of societies with significant middles classes -- especially so in Germany?

I do agree that the role of ideology might have changed the scope of atrocities in the 20th century. †But even there I'm not sure, particularly if you accept religion as a proxy for ideology. †The numbers of people who died as a direct or indirect consequence of the Protestant reformation were very large indeed. †I would argue that technology might have played at least as large a role as ideology in extending the reach of monstrosity in the past century.

And I do not buy the argument that Stalin was a natural outgrowth from Lenin. †Stalin was an psychopathic aberration, as was Hitler. †Stalin needed the power Lenin garnered, but Stalin did not need anyone to show him how to be a murdering, paranoid psychopath. †While I often wonder how the European world produced two such people almost simultaneously, they were not unique in history. †On a smaller scale, their genocidal like have emerged even later this century in Africa, the Balkans, and southeast Asia -- fuelled as often by ethnic strife as by ideology. †(And the scale was smaller only because the countries and the means were smaller, not their personal capacities for cruelty.)

None of my argument in an way means the "birthing violence" of new orders is or was "okay". †But, like it or not, historically it has been there in other times and places than just with the Nazis and the Bolsheviks. †And it has been most marked when one social or political order was replacing another.

That doesn't mean the soviet state would have evolved into "good" government. †It does mean, though, that the means of control would have changed as it had throughout history . . . and as was already happening beginning in the 1950's.

Elisabeth, this really suprises me coming from you . . . but you seem to be suggesting that even attempting to discuss soviet atrocities in a historical context is not allowed, because to do so is to say they are not personally responsible for what they did. †Am I misunderstanding you, or are you really suggesting that? †
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Tsarfan »

Offline Tsarfan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1848
  • Miss the kings, but not the kingdoms
    • View Profile
Re: Soviet Atrocities
« Reply #14 on: February 26, 2006, 04:26:55 PM »
Quote
I'd like to think that if Hitler had died in 1938 we would not be congratulating his successors as beneficent leaders because of decreased German unemployment, restored German confidence and a larger German presence on the international scene... all this while the euthanasia of the mentally and physically handicapped, not to mention the Nuremberg laws had until only recently still been in force...


I, too, would like to think so. †But stranger things have happened.

We Americans today are very proud of the democratic, prosperous, pluralistic society we have created. †We prefer to forget our handling of the indigenous Indian populations as we pursued our "manifest destiny", and we try to keep the volume down on the issues with those nettlesome descendants of slavery who just keep having trouble clambering up on the good times wagon with the rest of us.

Believe it or not, some societies do evolve far, far away from their beginnings.  Remember, 101 years passed between the Emancipation Proclamation and the passage of the Civil Rights Act -- and we're still trying to get it implemented in parts of the country.

So there . . . now you can all accuse me of being a Nazi sympathizer, too.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Tsarfan »